jeffevnz

Bertrand Russell considered it "highly doubtful that Jesus even existed", which is clearly an MJ position. Perhaps his PhD was not in New Testament literature, but would you consider him an amateur? Anyway that's just off the top of my head...
Slow down there. #8 is a conspiracy theory, and it has a total of one adherent that I know of. I don't see how 5-7 could be considered conspiracy theories. Let's not lump reasonable points of view together with crazy ones just to discredit them.

No Robots

To doubt is not to categorically state a position.

In this matter, yes.

Well, do, pray tell, provide us with more.

All mj scenarios imply an element of deliberate deceit at some point.

jeffevnz

What?? Of course it is. He doubted Jesus existed. That puts him somewhere in 5-8.
Then you're in over your head. BR knew a Hell of a lot about Xtianity and the Bible.
How about Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier? Wanna call them amateurs? Go on. I dare ya
This is not clear. Is a person being deceptive if they believe their own bullshit? Even if it were the case for all MJ scenarios, there's a world of difference between implying deceit at some point, and alleging a conspiracy.

Only choice #8 is a conspiracy theory.

Chris Weimer

Wel, Doherty is an amateur, and Richard Carrier doesn't yet have his PhD yet.~

Gregg

How exactly do you define amateur, though?

There are a lot of Biblical "scholars" out there that are so governed by confessional interests there is simply no way they can be objective. What difference does it make if you have a PhD if you're going to interpret all the evidence through the lens of your theological convictions, anyway?

No Robots

No one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew. -The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction of Contemporary Identity / William Arnal. (p. 5)

jeffevnz

So, we're taking William Arnal's word for what other people believe? This is what's known as hearsay.

Zeichman

This is precisely what Burton Mack, Bill Arnal, Richard Carrier, and many others have done or are doing from a theological and historical perspective. Many Christian scholars (I think Dennis MacDonald might be a good example of this), are quite skeptical of the reliability of NT writings, but nonetheless persevere.

Convince me he's qualified to speak authoritatively about it. His PhD, iirc, is not remotely related to NT studies. The fact that MJ "scholarship" is driven almost exclusively by populist, uninformed amateurs is confirmed by comparing Doherty's wikipedia page to that of James Robinson's, or Kloppenborg's (hint: Kloppenborg's does not yet exist). People NEED to educate themselves on issues before assuming Doherty is right, or even knows what he's talking about. In that, I find Doherty immensely irresponsible, focusing exclusively on accessible works instead of writing for those in the academy. I commend him on his response to Lee Strobel's garbage, but beyond that, he's equally guilty of this grievous sin. Crossan, Funk, Ehrman, and so many other spent much of their career writing scholarly arguments for their conclusions they espouse in their mid-to-late career populist writings. Trying to convince the academy before the public is, simply said, the only responsible thing to do.

I'm not saying I identify them as such, but most scholars don't view them as worthy of addressing. A few scholars have written reviews of Price's and Wells' books in major publications (again, Bill Arnal, being the first to come to mind), but they are certainly the exception, and their reviews, from what I remember, were quite negative.

I'm not sure I agree with this, No Robots, as Doherty's hypothesis, from what I recall, does not call for deceit. However flawed his arguments may be. Similarly, HJ scenarios can use deceit (cf. Hyam Maccoby's thoughts on Paul).

Precisely my point, and I'm always glad to have Mr. Weimer on my side. When Doherty expects us to simply take his word on things (and one particularly bad example comes to mind, if anyone wants me to discuss it), his qualifications are hardly of the sort of which would call for it. ESPECIALLY when it goes against the conclusions of liberal mainstream scholarship, and Doherty has no backing evidence.

I defy you to prove him wrong. Bill Arnal is one of the best NT scholars alive today.

Chris Weimer

Not employed for the work produced. Mr. Doherty isn't hired by a university, seminary, etc... He published a book and maintains a website, something that many could do, and many do.

Getting a PhD from a recognized school means that a) you've gone through necessary training to make meaningful judgements, regardless of bias, and b) you are accepted by your peers in the field of work you've obtained your doctorate in.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing off Richard Carrier because he only has his masters, but it wasn't the qualification that Chris Zeichman called for. And in fact, talking with Richard a while ago, I think he may be less of a MJer than he is often cited for. He doesn't post so much on the HJ theory, so I can't say what his current thoughts on the matter are.

Chris Weimer

Thanks Chris! :wave: